MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907210592 · doi:10.3390/make1010018

Evaluation of ARIMA Models for Human–Machine Interface State Sequence Prediction

2019· article· en· W2907210592 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMachine Learning and Knowledge Extraction · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsOntario Power GenerationOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive integrated moving averageInterface (matter)Computer scienceSituation awarenessTime seriesProcess (computing)Sequence (biology)Autoregressive modelHuman–machine interfaceHuman–machine systemData miningOperator (biology)Human errorState (computer science)Series (stratigraphy)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningEngineeringEconometricsAlgorithmReliability engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, auto-regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) time-series data forecast models are evaluated to ascertain their feasibility in predicting human–machine interface (HMI) state transitions, which are modeled as multivariate time-series patterns. Human–machine interface states generally include changes in their visually displayed information brought about due to both process parameter changes and user actions. This approach has wide applications in industrial controls, such as nuclear power plant control rooms and transportation industry, such as aircraft cockpits, etc., to develop non-intrusive real-time monitoring solutions for human operator situational awareness and potentially predicting human-in-the-loop error trend precursors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it